Altogether 445 bats, representing nine species, caught during swarming in the Lodowa Cave in Mount Ciemniak, Western Tatra Mountains, southern Poland, were examined for ectoparasitic mites. In total, 259 spinturnicid (Spinturnix mystacina, S. andegavinus, S. kolenatii, S. plecotinus and S. myoti) and 95 argasid (Carios vespertilionis) mites were collected from seven bat species, Myotis myotis, M. mystacinus, M. brandtii, M. daubentonii, Eptesicus nilssonii, Plecotus auritus, and Vespertilio murinus. There were sex-based differences in the prevalence of mites in some hosts but no differences in their mean intensity and there was no observed relationship between the number of mites and the condition of the bats. The prevalence of mites differed significantly between years in E. nilssonii. The results suggested a very low mite load on swarming bats that had no impact on the body condition of bats.
The article provides a reassessment of Aristotle’s accounts of Socrates, which modern historians describe as one of the four main sources in solving the so-called Socratic problem. In the first part, the article returns to the grammatical distinction by which Aristotle mentions Socrates’ name. In the next part, it analyzes those places in Metaphysics and in Aristotle’s ethical writings that make mention of Socrates. In a more detailed fashion the structure of Aristotle’s Protrepticus, in which Socrates does not appear but his absence could be important for understanding Aristotle’s approach to philosophy, is then presented. In the last part, the article returns to the problem of the Sokratikoi logoi and asks whether Aristotle uses this term to mean a prose genre in which the fictional is mixed with the historical. These respective analyzes lead us to the conclusion that Aristotle worked freely with the character of Socrates, relying primarily on the representations of Socrates in Plato’s dialogues. Thus, Aristotle’s accounts do not help us in the reconstruction of Socrates’ historical attitudes. and Článok sa pokúša o prehodnotenie Aristotelových správ o Sókratovi, ktoré označujú moderní historici za jeden zo štyroch hlavných zdrojov pri riešení tzv. sókratovského problému. V prvej časti sa článok vracia ku gramatickému rozlíšeniu, ktorým Aristotelés uvádza Sókratovo meno. V ďalšej časti podrobuje analýze jednotlivé miesta v Metafyzike a v etických spisoch, ktoré sa zmieňujú o Sókratovi. Podrobnejšie sa pristavuje pri štruktúre Aristotelovho Protreptika, v ktorom Sókratés nevystupuje, ale jeho absencia by mohla byť významná pre pochopenie aristotelovského prístupu k filosofii. V poslednej časti sa vracia k problematike Sókratikoi logoi a kladie si otázku, či má Aristotelés na mysli pod týmto výrazom prozaický žáner, v ktorom sa mieša fiktívne s historickým. Jednotlivé analýzy vyúsťujú do záveru, že Aristotelés pracuje s postavou Sókrata voľne, opiera sa hlavne o obrazy Sókrata v Platónových dialógoch, takže Aristotelove správy nám nepomáhajú pri rekonštrukcii Sókratových historických postojov.